Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

ACCUSED RELEASED ON DEFAULT BAIL U/S 167(2) CR.P.C. CAN BE CANCELLED ON STRONG GROUNDS: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of bail granted on default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and paved the way for the cancellation of such bail on merits. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, emphasized that bail granted on default does not assume the same character as bail granted on merits under Sections 437(1) and (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Supreme court observed, "The release of the accused on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not on merits, but on the failure of the investigating agency in completing the investigation and filing the chargesheet within the stipulated time prescribed therein." It further clarified that every person released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is deemed to be released under Chapter XXXIII for procedural purposes only, and the bail order cannot be cancelled based solely on the filing of the chargesheet.

However, the court emphasized that once a chargesheet is filed and a strong case is made out from its contents, bail granted on default can be cancelled on merits. The court highlighted the need for special reasons and strong grounds to establish the commission of a non-bailable offense from the chargesheet. It referred to Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the relevant provisions for considering the cancellation of bail on merits.

The ruling struck a balance between protecting personal liberty and serving the interests of justice. It recognized that denying the courts the power to examine the merits of a case after an accused is released on default bail could lead to a situation where illegality and dishonesty are rewarded. The court held that the administration of justice required the courts to have the power to cancel bail and evaluate the gravity of the offense committed by the accused.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court's decision dismissing the application for cancellation of bail filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. The case was remitted to the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad for fresh consideration of the application on merits.

The judgment referred to several relevant legal provisions, including Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., as well as Sections 437(1), 437(2), 439(1), 437(5), and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. It also relied on previous cases such as Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, and Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, New Delhi.

This ruling by the Supreme Court provides clarity on the bail process and ensures that bail granted on default is subject to cancellation on merits, based on strong grounds established from the chargesheet. It sets a precedent for considering the interests of justice while balancing the rights of the accused and the need for a fair trial.

 

Date of Decision: January 16, 2023

The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation  vs Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy 

 

Latest Legal News